It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: Explosion Rocks Shi'ite holiest site

page: 4
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 04:19 PM
link   
I can't believe that the bombing was orchestrated by the US.

The result is too destabilizing. Civil war is around the corner and crossfire is the most dangerous.

I don't buy it...I say the insurgency is getting desperate.




posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
If you want to shut your mind to the possibility, you're certainly free to do so. But some (me included) are keeping ours open, if you don't mind.


I agree we must keep our minds open to any possibilities.

One thing is for sure the civil unrest games in Iraq are officially civil war the two main tribal groups are taking to the streets to fight each other.

But again who benefits from it? US? foreign groups?

If civil wars erupt the government in Iraq will no be able to handle the deaths and destruction that will bring.

Who will have to take over only until control is applied US military.

I believe that the worst of what is to become of Iraq is happening now, the more our troops will get involve the more casualties we will see in our side.

Somebody asked why a Mosque is holly?

Because it house the death of past important clerics.



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 04:22 PM
link   
What better way to propose an excuse to withdrawl then to incite a civil war, pull our troops from the battleground, and attack Iran.



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by QuietSoul
What better way to propose an excuse to withdrawl then to incite a civil war, pull our troops from the battleground, and attack Iran.


The problem with that is a destabilized Iraq at the backs of those forces making an incursion into Iran. My take on an invasion of Iran is a scenario of orchestrated resistance to the coalition forces. It won't be as easy as Iraq, mainly because there is so much more territory to cover...and there is a mountainous terrain where forces can easily hide and be resupplied by the Chinese, who have a vested interest in a stable Iran. They need Iranian oil and they will put their hands in to help.
.



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
.............
If you want to shut your mind to the possibility, you're certainly free to do so. But some (me included) are keeping ours open, if you don't mind.


I don't even think it a possibility because 1)there is no proof that the U.S. is behind this....

and 2) Shi'ites and Sunnis have been fighting each other for centuries to see who gets the power to control all Muslims.



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
I don't even think it a possibility because 1)there is no proof that the U.S. is behind this....


Yet is there any proof at all as to why may have been behind this? Any evidence conclusively linking anyone?

Since there isn't, I guess you can only logically conclude that no one did it. After all, if there is no proof, there is apparently no possibility, as you yourself suggest.



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots
A civil war would sure tie up US forces, but I doubt that is the case. (Meaning Iran wants to start a civil way in Iraq)


thats my little theory on the matter, to tie up US forces. Plus it creates more tension against the US forces, there was report they were blamed for not providing security.



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Yet is there any proof at all as to why may have been behind this? Any evidence conclusively linking anyone?

Since there isn't, I guess you can only logically conclude that no one did it. After all, if there is no proof, there is apparently no possibility, as you yourself suggest.


Oh, i see.... so i guess the holy site exploded by itself then?....

The most logical explanation almost always tends to be the simplest.

There have been conflicts and battles between Shi'ites and Sunnis for centuries now, although it is possible this wasn't it, the facts point to this being the most probable explanation.

The last thing the U.S. wants is a civilo war in Iraq.

Some of the other members might be right, Iran could be behind this.

[edit on 22-2-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
I don't even think it a possibility because 1)there is no proof that the U.S. is behind this....


bsbray is right. I guess it didn't happen at all because there's no proof of who did it.
Possibility does not require proof.


Originally posted by Muaddib
The last thing the U.S. wants is a civilo war in Iraq.


How do you know that?

[edit on 22-2-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 05:05 PM
link   
BH.....the mosque was bombed.... so someone attacked it....

As for the question of who would do something like this? and why the U.S. wouldn't be behind this attack...

Because a civil war will put our troops in even more harms way. We want to stabilize Iraq, not destabilize it. We are there already remember?

Iran on the other hand will win big if civil war erupts in Iraq. There could be other possible scenarios too, but I am certain the U.S. has nothing to do with this because in case you haven't noticed, the coalition has been trying to stabilize Iraq and make it self sufficient, a civil war does quite the contrary hence the coalition and the U.S. would not win anything with this act.


[edit on 22-2-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 05:24 PM
link   
Please tell me you're not saying the USA is directly responsible for this BH.


Insurgents detonated bombs inside one of Iraq's holiest Shiite shrines Wednesday, destroying its golden dome and triggering more than 90 reprisal attacks on Sunni mosques.


[edit on 22-2-2006 by CogitoErgoSum1]



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by CogitoErgoSum1
Please tell me you're not saying the USA is directly responsible for this BH.


First you show me where I said it.



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 05:39 PM
link   
Your last quote and reply insinuated it, but if I am wrong...forgive me.



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
BH.....the mosque was bombed.... so someone attacked it....

Iran on the other hand will win big if civil war erupts in Iraq.

Having known and counted as friends quite a few Muslims, both Sunni and Shia, I can say this with fairly reasonable certianity...Shia Islam, Iranian or not, deeply revere those shrines in a way I don't think any American really understands; those shrines are the heart and soul of their religion, and they take it very seriously and very personally. Iran might certianly win big as Muaddib has said if civil war erupts in Iraq, but, while I am not a betting man, I would put money down that they had nothing to do with it, and if it turns out Al Qeada had something to do with it, we might as well just step aside because Al Qeada will have made a mortal enemy.



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
Shia Islam, Iranian or not, deeply revere those shrines in a way I don't think any American really understands; those shrines are the heart and soul of their religion,


That is exactly my thoughts too, still wondering who really benefits from doing this.

But then again you have to understand that the temples around Iraq has been targeted, and after this last attack on such an important land mark, more Sunnis temple were targeted in retaliation.

I still believe that US troops will only get more attacks upon their security than anything else and more resentment, so I can not imagine US doing something like this even if they have a very good reason for it.

I can not imagine our government risking our soldiers anymore that they have been at risk since the occupation.



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 06:32 PM
link   
I'd like to make two points here:

1) Concussive Force of Explosions/Pressure - Beyond incendiary potential, explosives wreak most of their damage through pressure waves. From the pictures, it is clear that the mosque did not burn, but crumbled. If the perpetrators were to put explosives in the mosque, close and seal the doors, then detonate the explosives, you'd have a massive pressure increase within the mosque at the point of detonation. Looking at the pictures, it seems that the pressure increase caused the dome to expand, which caused it to shed its outer layer. Then the expansion reached a critical point and the top of the dome was compromised to release the pressure. All the debris then fell back down to fill the mosque.

2) I agree with prior contentions that Saddam was actually good for Iraq and it was his brutality which ensured that the Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds lived in relative peace side-by-side. This theory is only reinforced by the sectarian infighting which has occurred within Iraq's new political process and the attacks which have been carried out against each group by the next. Ultimately, civil war in the region was quite likely and was even a caveat which was identified during the initial planning stages of the invasion (ultimately, it was considered to be of little importance WRT invasion and the US proceeded). The current situation is the direct result of US interference in Iraq. I only wonder whether it was the accidental result of the fact that the planners did not take the possibility of civil war seriously, or if it was an intentional goal of the invasion. The only way to determine which was the case is to look for costs and benefits associated with inciting a civil war in Iraq. Personally, though I believe that Islamic militants have the will to wage a neverending war with the Western world, I do not believe their equipment, tactics, or warfighting style will result in a greater role for Islam on the world stage in the end. To argue that civil war is being fostered or even encouraged by Western powers in Iraq would almost imply that the threat these militants pose to the world is great enough to necessitate efforts to "keep them busy" fighting each other. I do think that a tangential benefit to inciting a war between Sunnis and Shiites (at least from a Western-terrorist-target point of view) is that such a war is unlikely to be confined to Iraq alone and will ultimately result in a self-inflicted population culling within Islamic cultures which will reduce such a population's ability to wage "terror-war" against the West. Again, however, I stick to my guns in my contention that the terror threat is not what it's been made out to be which leaves the need to encourage Muslims to kill each other without a purpose.

Now, on the fringe end of things...this could have been an attempt on the part of the US to position Iran as a primary instigator of civil war in Iraq, setting the stage for more pre-emptive attacks. I'm not saying the US did it because even an intelligent operator would realize that it would be geo-political suicide to get caught in such an act. That does not preclude the possiblity that the US had foreknowledge of the attack and did nothing to stop it. If we see this become a talking-point for the administration in the coming days and Iran is named as the suspected instigator, I will venture to guess that the US was at least somewhat complicit in the attack. The timing and response would almost certainly point to an effort to demonize Iran prior to the strikes which will likely come next month.

[edit on 22-2-2006 by chaosrain]



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 06:36 PM
link   
It was the 3 guys who did the demo for WTC 1,2 and 7. I swear, sometimes you guys go to far.


This is a 1000 year war we are in middle of in Iraq. So you are saying that the other 80 reprisal attacks throughout Iraw today were the US too? With no proof, it is common sense for god's sake!

My best educated guess would be Al-qeada or a similar organization to stir anti-sentiment towards the US, and blame it on the US occupation as to why it occured, when in fact all it is doing is creating a driving a riftdeeper into the Muslim community. It will now be the will of Allah to remove everyone from the country. They are not one step from civil war, they are there.



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 06:36 PM
link   
When, not if, Iraq breaks apart into civil war it will be a bloodbath and the only thing that will unite both sides (this will be a Shia/Sunni civil war, the Kurds will just split off and finish forming their own country) will the their hatred for Americans, and if you think our troops have it rough there now, just wait. And the only thing, if history holds firm, that will end it is not some rinkydink American sponsored "government", it will be the rise of another strongman who may very well make Saddam look like the soul of civility. It would have been much better if the Bush Administration had paid a little attention to history before deciding to start an unprovoked war, we have fallen into all the standard traps for empire builders, but then some people never learn.



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 06:44 PM
link   
I don't think the US would gain anything fron doing this.

The obvious suspects are the Sunni islamists, they get to strike a blow at the Shia "heretics" while trapping US in the middle of an Iraqi (and Islamic) civil war.

It's not new, they've been trying to do this for a while now, but this raises the stakes considerably.

[edit on 2/22/06 by xmotex]



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by CogitoErgoSum1
Your last quote and reply insinuated it, but if I am wrong...forgive me.


No apology necessary, but you are forgiven.
I usually say EXACTLY what I mean. I'm very careful to do so. Usually.

I'm NOT saying I think the US did it. I'm simply investigating the possibilities. (or trying to). Earlier in this thread, I said:


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Yes, I'm insinuating, even speculating the possibility that the US could be involved. I doubt it, but it's certainly a possibility.



Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I think we can all agree that the most likely effect of this move would be a civil war in Iraq. Muslim against Muslim. Who would benefit from that? Is it what the Shia want? A civil war? I don't know.


I don't know who did this. I'm speculating. I suspect the US. But that doesn't mean I'm accusing them (us).


Originally posted by grover
When, not if, Iraq breaks apart into civil war it will be a bloodbath and the only thing that will unite both sides (this will be a Shia/Sunni civil war, the Kurds will just split off and finish forming their own country) will the their hatred for Americans, and if you think our troops have it rough there now, just wait.


You said a mouthful right there (and very graphically, I might add) but I believe it to be true. And I'm very concerned for our military men and women.







 
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join